CORRECTION: Heaven save us from the callousness of pointing out that "these poor people's deaths" reflect badly on the institution that is supposed to be supporting them.

The Democrat party?

So let me get this straight... detractors of this post are simultaneously (though not the same people) saying "think of the humanity of these individual lives!" and then saying "let's use them for our gain [to end the war]."

I think it comes down to figuring out what your goals are. I think it's disingenuous for your goal to be (Stay/Leave) Iraq and use these stats to further your cause. Everybody here agrees suicide isn't something we want to happen in any sector of society, so the goal should be less suicide. You can't logically make the conclusion "end the war, less suicide" at this point.

Sure you can't discount the humanity of the situation, but having feelings about it often only hinders one from finding solutions from numbers.

That's exactly the the sort of irrational, emotional, 'OH MY GOD WE GOTTA' DO SOMETHING!" reaction that, left unchecked in earlier times, led to human sacrifice, witch-burning, the Inquisition, and other wonderful examples of letting one's FEELINGS rule the day.

One of the first things we taught aspiring EMTs was "Don't just DO SOMETHING, stand there!" In other words, when dealing with serious matters, think carefully what the circumstances are really telling you before you undertake an action.

As a vet myself, I reject the idiotic notion that, because I don't squeal and shriek, I don't care. I went to my first military funerals at age 20, and it didn't stop there. WIA and KIA are more than just numbers to me, but they are still numbers as well. They deserve serious consideration, not only hand-wringing and emotion.

So to any self-righteous *sshole who thinks he or she "cares" more than me just because I consider war and the military too serious to base policy on what feels good, let me ask them one question: I have a number of friends in Arlington, how about you ?

I care about them, but I don't want to base foreign-policy completely on pain-avoidance. A small child pulls the covers up over his head, convinced that if he cannot see the scary monster, the scary monster can't see him. A small child hides in the closet during a fire, lacking the understanding that some dangers are far worse when not faced promptly and rationally. A small child runs away from a fight, convinced that avoiding a black eye today is worth getting pummelled again tomorrow.

An adult say "This is gonna' suck, but I might as well get it over with. It ain't gonna' suck any less tomorrow."

Sacrifice and delay of gratification are adult traits. Letting emotions rule the day is not.

And the danger in "news" like this is having only an emotional response. If an undesirable trend forms (by no means proven), let's consider what can be done. But it needs to fall somewhat short of calling for withdrawal because 11 PFC Snarglepuss's killed themselves.

Perhaps we should just make Basic Training harder ? That might weed out more folks likely to kill themselves ? Okay, that was a flippant response, not a serious one, but if the desired outcome is "reduce the rate of suicides," it might work.

Personally, I think that pulling out of Iraq without success would increase the despair and thus the overall suicide rates among the military for several years to come. Imagine if we'd pulled out of Europe in WW II at the Battle of the Bulge ?

/Sarcasm on.
Nothing like being told "Ehhh, all your sacrifices were for nothing. Your buddies died for nothing. It was all a mistake." to pump up the morale and make suicide less likely.
/Sarcasm off.

No one has made that claim. Though, in reality a statistically insignificant change in the suicide rate, and a rate that is not different from the general populace is one indication of institutional success.

Oh? Does it prove, then, institutional success?

Heaven save us from the callousness of pointing out that "these poor people's deaths" reflect badly on the institution that is supposed to be supporting them.

How so? The Army suicide rate remains, despite a grueling war, comparable to that among civilians of the same age and gender. That's rather remarkable, no? The Army has all manner of counseling programs, formal and informal, in place and always has. And it has a very formalized suicide prevention program that goes back to the early 1990s.

Could we do more? Sure. The Walter Reed fiasco showed that.

But the fact that 11 more soldiers killed themselves in 2006 than in 2005 in a force of 1.43 million doesn't prove institutional failure.

LOL, yes, Mr. Orwell. I take your point. Heaven save us from the callousness of pointing out that "these poor people's deaths" are entirely their fault and do not reflect on the military at all. True compassion lies in blaming the men and women who have taken their own lives for their weakness and cowardice, absolving the military of all responsibility, and then forgetting about it as quickly as possible -- which in your case is at about the speed of light.

Is there human significance? What I mean is, if you are a human being thinking as a human being as opposed to a robot thinking like a statistician, is it significant and meaningful that last year 88 soldiers killed themselves, and this year 99 soldiers killed themselves?

getting emotional about it doesn't bring them back.

No, but it might help to end this insane war, a war which you have supported. Guys like you and me live in nice houses and spend time in Tuscany (actually I prefer Paris).

Meanwhile, the troops who selflessly serve our country are dying in the brutal heat in Baghdad to give "breathing space" to a government that followed Bush's example and WENT ON VACATION. Doesn't that piss you off? I recommend a strong does of emotionalism.